Summary: We have upheld this complaint about how the Council dealt with a grant application. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr Y and improving its service for others.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of a grant application for his son (Z). He says the Council’s policy was unclear, which led to procedural unfairness.
2. Z was unable to access the grant, and Mr Y says this had both an emotional and financial impact on the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended).
4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y applied to the Council for a grant for his son (Z). The application was rejected, because the Council said Mr Y breached the terms and conditions of this by not submitting receipts in time. The Council advised Mr Y to resubmit the application.
8. Mr Y says there was no clear deadline for submitting receipts. The Council acknowledged this and said it will carry out service improvements to ensure relevant dates are clearly stated for future applicants.
9. Before Mr Y could reapply, the Council closed the programme. The Council was entitled to close the programme once funds had been allocated. However, it acknowledges that Mr Y’s reapplication could have been made sooner had there not been an issue with the lack of information it gave about when the receipts should be provided.
10. We cannot say whether the grant would have been paid, as this would have been a decision for the Council to make. But issues in the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s first application put him at a disadvantage and meant it could not be considered alongside other applicants.
11. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault. This is because the Council’s policy was unclear.
12. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions by making a symbolic payment of £100 to Mr Y and by updating its grant application process and policy to include the dates for returning receipts.

Agreed action

13. To its credit, the Council agreed. The Council should complete the agreed actions within four weeks of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr Y and improving its service for others.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman